JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the property comprised in Khasra No. 426 ad-measuring 296.20 acres situated in Todhpur, had been requisitioned for the purposes of Central Government for its Ministry of Defence vide order dated 1st July, 1976 alongwith certain other lands. There being initial dispute about the title of the petitioner to the land, a litigation pursued and ultimately the matter was settled by the apex court in February, 1989 in favour of the present petitioner and recuring compensation was paid to the petitioner vide receipt dated 22nd January, 1992. 3. It is informed that the matter relating to quantum of recurring compensation is pending consideration before the Arbitrator. However, on that part of controversy is not concerned of this writ petition. 4. Vide notice dated 28th February, 1993 (Annexure-10) issued under section 7(1) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition Act, 1952, the Collector acting as Competent Authority under the Act of 1952, intimated the petitioner that the Central Government is of the opinion that the property in question, which is subject to requisition be acquired for a public purpose and called upon the petitioner to show-cause within 15 days from the date of service of notice upon them why the property should not be acquired. 5. In response to this notice, vide Annexure-1 dated 12th March, 1993 the petitioner submitted his detailed objection against acquisition of the property in question. The objections included the question competency of the Collector, an officer of the State Govt., to issue notice, that the notice does not disclose whether conditions mentioned in Sections 7(1) and 7(3) of the Act of 1952 are satisfied so as to entitle to Central Government to acquire the property in question under the Act. The objection was also taken for issuing notice to the State Government through its department concerned with the implementation of Urban Lands (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 on the ground that no matter being pending under the said Act, the State of Rajasthan could not have been treated as a party interested to join the issue of acquisition. The objection was also taken that the notice-does not disclose the public purpose for which the property is now sought to be acquired. The objection was also taken that the notice-does not disclose the public purpose for which the property is now sought to be acquired. Along with, submitting written objections, the petitioner specifically sought an opportunity of personal hearing, if the notice is not immediately withdrawn or cancelled after considering the objections. This followed with the impugned order Annexure-12 dated 7th May, 1993 rejecting his objections, which resulted in.the publication of Notification dated 7th May, 1993. 6. However, it is common ground between the parties now that no opportunity of hearing as required under section 7(l) as has been demanded by the petitioner while submitting objections to reply to show cause notice raising objections to the acquisition, was afforded to the petitioner. 7. Section 7 of Requisitioning & Acquisition Act, 1952, which envisages acquisition of a requisitioned property and lays down the procedure to be adopted for such acquisition, reads as under: 7. Power to. acquire requisitioned property.-(1) Where any property is subject to requisition, the Central Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary to acquire the property for a public purpose, at any time acquire such property by publishing in the Official Gazette a notice to the effect that the Central Government has decided to acquire the property in pursuance of this section : Provided that before issuing such notice, the Central Government shall call upon the owner of or any other person who, in the opinion of the Central Government, may be interested in, such property to show cause why the property should not be acquired and after considering the cause, it any, shown by any person interested in the property and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, the Central Government may pass such orders as it deems fit. (2) When a notice as aforesaid is published in the Official Gazette, the requisitioned property shall, on and from the beginning of the day on which the notice is so published, vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances and the period of requisition of such Property shall end. (3) No property shall be acquitted under this section except in the following circumstances, namely (a) Where any works have, during the period of requisition, been constructed on, in or over. (3) No property shall be acquitted under this section except in the following circumstances, namely (a) Where any works have, during the period of requisition, been constructed on, in or over. the property wholly or partially at the expense of the Central Government decides that the value of, or the right to use, such works should be secured or preserved for the purposes of Government; or (b) where the cost of restoring the property to its condition at the time of its requisition would, in the determination of the Central Government, be excessive and the owner declines to accept release from requisition of the property without payment of compensation for so restoring the property. (4) Any decision or determination of the Central Government under sub-section (3) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. (5) for the purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (3) "works" includes buildings, structures and improvements of every description. 8. A perusal of the aforesaid provision goes to Chow that before publishing in the Official Gazette a notice to the effect that the Central Government has decided to acquire the property in pursuance of Section 7, a show cause notice has to be given to any person interested in the property. In case any objections are received in response to notice under section 7(1) such objections are to be considered and an order is to be passed about objection after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The notice is to be given to the owner of the property under requisition as well as also to those whom Central Govt. considers as a person interested in such property. The authority to act under section 7 vest in the Central Govt. 9. The three stages of determination required by Section 7 are apparently (1) giving show cause notice, (2) submission of objections and (3) their consideration on giving the parties opportunity of being heard. Mere submission of reply to show cause notice and its considerations without giving an opportunity of hearing to parties interested in respect of such objections is not envisaged. If the requirements of statutes were to be fulfilled merely on consideration of objections as may have been received by the competent authority, in response to show cause notice and opportunity of being heard in person is not considered necessary. If the requirements of statutes were to be fulfilled merely on consideration of objections as may have been received by the competent authority, in response to show cause notice and opportunity of being heard in person is not considered necessary. The expression 'and after giving the parties opportunity of being heard' in proviso to Section 7(1) shall be rendered otiose. 10. The well-known cannon of statutory interpretation tells us that a statute must be interpreted in a manner that every word employed in the statute is accorded same meaning and no part of it is rendered otiose. Legislature is presumed to have employed only such expression which has a meaning and it does not use extra or superfluous words. 11. Moreover even in the absence of said expression 'and after giving an opportunity of hearing to parties' were not there general principles of natural justice would demand, in the absence of an express exclusion, that objections are considered in accordance with principles of natural justice. The natural justice, as a part of fair procedure to be adopted by State in all its actions, shall demands that where a party is given a show cause notice, he is offered an effective opportunity to raise objections to intended action for which such notice-has been issued. In such event when the owner of the property filed objections to proposed acquisition under section 7(1) of the Act, and demanded specifically personal hearing if the written objection on there own does not have the desired effect, it was imperative for the respondents to have given such opportunity. 12. Section 7 does not merely say that the Central Government may pass such orders as it deems fit after considering the cause, if any, shown by the interested person in the property, but the statute unequivocally mandates that after considering the cause, if any, shown by any person interested in the property 'and after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard', the Central Govt may pass such 'orders as it may deem fit.' This clearly indicates that consideration of the cause shown by the interested person has to be after giving opportunity of hearing, if the same are received. 13. The opportunity was specifically sought while submitting objections vide Annexure-11. The contention was specifically raised in petition that no such opportunity of hearing was given. 13. The opportunity was specifically sought while submitting objections vide Annexure-11. The contention was specifically raised in petition that no such opportunity of hearing was given. This assertion was not denied by the respondents in their replies During the course of hearing, from the record of proceedings, which was available with the learned AAG, it is confirmed that no such opportunity of hearing was afforded 14. In addition thereto, I also find that the impugned order Annexure-12 suffers from the vice of being non speaking order inasmuch as it does disclose that all the objections raised in the written statement have not been dealt with by the Competent Authority. 15. In that view of the matter, the impugned order Annexure-12 and consequently, publication of Notification, Annexure-13 cannot be sustained and the same are hearty quashed. However, it will not preclude the respondents from proceeding further in pursuance to Annexure-10, in accordance with law. 16. The petition is allowed as aforesaid. There shall be no order as to Costs.Writ petition allowed - Impugned order and publication of notification quashed - Respondents free to proceed further as per annexure 10. *******